Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:16:53 +0100
20 Jan, Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi LS:
> A nice example of the esthetic aspect of DQ, expressed in the DQ and SQ
> Principle as "Dynamic Quality is more pleasing than static quality,"
> appeared in the NY Times book review Jan. 18
>
> The review was about a book called 'Lifelines: Biology Beyond Determinism."
> The reviewer described a battle currently being fought between those
> biologists who attribute evolution solely to the workings of genes,
> represented by Richard Dawkins, and those who favor biological pluralism,
> represented by Stephen Jay Gould.
A very apt observation Platt. The "aesthetic" component has always
been a platypus in our culture. Poincare, Maxwell and Eistein - to
mention a few - has pointed to its decisive role, but "beauty" has
no place within the Subject/Object framework. It has been called
'deeper reality', 'subliminal level' 'sub-consciousness', 'third
plane', but when scrutinized it goes poof ! It is not subjective
because it comes TO the subject from somewhere else, and yet it
is not objective either because it is inside the person. (Re. the
Libet experiments.)
I will only add that the big controversy isn't just between
simple gene biology (Dawkins) and complex biology (Gould), but between
biology and sociology: whether we are determined by heritage or by
upbringing. Just now biology is on top, but not long ago it was all
sociology (remember Skinner?). And the pendulum will continue to
swing between these two, until someone comes to her/his senses and
takes a look at the MOQ.
The SOM has only these two alternatives and its dualism continues to
produce platypi. I have tried to direct the attention to Pirsig, but
they (Lars Marius will know our P2 radio popular science program
"Verd ã Vite" and the leader who is a Dawkins fan) don't even
understand what Pirsig is suggesting a solution to, and
probably consider me a local nitwit who keeps pestering them (I have
stopped). It's the old Greeks over and over again; the problem is
supposed to be solved within THEIR framework. "New ideas" to them
means a slight modification of the old. No disturbing new ones
please; its our living! (The cultural immunity system)
There is another book by one Matt Ridley: "The Origins of Virtue".
(virtue-areté-quality!) who points to the social component of
existence, but without the metaphysical foundation it becomes just a
first movement of the pendulun back towards sociology (upbringing)
and nothing is gained.
Bo
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST